Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 283

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Prognostic value of tumor‐associated macrophage count in human bladder cancer

Open access
Hanada, Toshikatsu, Nakagawa, Masayuki, Emoto, Akio, Nomura, Takeo, Nasu, Nobuyoshi, Nomura, Yoshio·2000·International Journal of Urology

Abstract

Background : We determined the tumor‐associated macrophage (TAM) count to investigate its importance in predicting clinical outcome or prognosis in patients with bladder cancer. Methods : The TAM count and microvessel count (MVC) were determined immunohistochemically in 63 patients with bladder cancer, including 40 superficial bladder cancers and 23 invasive bladder cancers. To examine the relationship between TAM count and clinical outcome or prognosis in bladder cancer, cystectomy rates, distant metastasis rates, vascular invasion rates and 5 year survival rates were compared between patients with low (< 67) and high (≥ 67) TAM counts. Results : The TAM count in invasive bladder cancers (154.22 ± 11.98) was significantly higher than in superficial bladder cancers (49.05 ± 7.76; P < 0.0001). The MVC in invasive bladder cancers (71.55 ± 10.44) was also significantly higher than in superficial bladder cancers (47.02 ± 5.57; P < 0.05). There was a positive correlation between TAM count and MVC (r = 0.30; P = 0.02). Immunohistochemical staining using CD68/horseradish peroxidase monoclonal antibody showed more infiltrating cells in invasive than superficial bladder cancers. Patients with a high TAM count (≥ 67) showed significantly higher rates of cystectomy, distant metastasis and vascular invasion than those with a lower TAM count (< 67). The 5 year survival rate estimated using the Kaplan– Meier method was significantly lower in patients with a high TAM count than in those with a low TAM count (P < 0.0001). Conclusions : Our results suggest that determination of TAM count in bladder cancer tissues is of value to predict the clinical outcome or prognosis and to select appropriate treatment strategies in patients with bladder cancer.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1442-2042.2000.00190.x

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Hanada, T., Nakagawa, M., Emoto, A., Nomura, T., Nasu, N., & Nomura, Y.
Venue
International Journal of Urology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2000-07
Volume
7
Issue
7
Pages
263-269
ISSN
  • 0919-8172 (ISSN-L)
  • 1442-2042
OpenAlex
W2027584970
Cited by
283
References
0
FWCI
0.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.